The Canadian attitude toward attacks articulated

Rex Murphy is the editorialist in residence and curmudgeon at CBC.

I think in this one he articulates the heart and values of Canadians wrt the recent attack in Ottawa.

cheers.

[video=youtube;N89BAADF1bE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N89BAADF1bE[/video]

 

what was used to stop the jihadist?

 

Well, with all due respects, this is a load of codswallop. If the killed soldier was a low-paid security guard, nobody would have cared. Why is it that the killing of a military is taken more dramatically than a civilian's? Much hypocrisy, each time the subject is brought on.

Also included in the Codswallop package: "House of the People" my behind; these people are there to inforce their parties on Canadians, not vice-versa. It's been awhile since the Canadian emperor is naked.

The most serious casualty of the shoot-out was Pearson's philosophy. Today, nobody gives half-a-schnitz about financing a helping mission instead of bringing just a couple jet fighters more in a war against a philosophy, for fear of being called "appeasers" and "intimidated cowards". That's about the best thing that could have happened to "Canadian Hawk" Harper.

 

They say his name in the vid - Vickers? I think he used a semi-auto pistol.

 

so, a gun was used to stop the jihadist?

 

Unless it was some noisy Australian boomerang, yes. Why?

 

With all due respect that is a total crock.

This was the Cenotaph and he was an honor guard. I guess such symbolism is lost on some.

The murder of a soldier in uniform, murdered because he is wearing that uniform is going to be much higher profile than a single civilian being murdered. Again seems you can't figure something as simple as that out.

Yes the house of the people. Seems you do not quite grasp what or how a parliamentary democracy works.

Pearson's philosophy was KILLED by the UN and its idiotic ROE requirements that almost drove Dellaire crazy, not by some unstable criminal Islamist ********.

While I admit it is rather subjective, there are most definitely fights that need to be fought. And murderous, barbaric Islamists attempting to establish a transnational caliphate seem to fit that bill.

You a pequiste?

 

the gun owned by the Sergeant at Arms of the Canadian Parliament.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure you are driving towards a point, but until you articulate it, I afraid it will remain in obscurity.

 

Highly doubtful that he owned it, government issue...

 

I don't know if he uses his own gun or not, but it does seem more plausible it is government issue.
To tell the truth, I never knew the sergeant at arms was actually armed, apart from the mace of course.

 

Neither did I, I was always under the impression it was just a cerimonial position...the think in centuries past he was actually tasked with keeping the original HoC in england in order, physically if need be ...

 

I think the video was well articulated. It echoes the voices of my friends, family, neighbours. Some of the comments on here from whom I assume are Canadian, from the flag attached to their names, I find a little unsettling. Not knowing as a Canadian that the Sgt At Arms, is armed. You'd think the title in itself was a clue. Google the position, and you'll find the answer. Or just wait until something happens, and find out the truth.

 

"the killer was a hateful brute, let us not name him" Good call.

 

Oh I can see that alright - I just can't comprehend it: Soldiers are trained and equiped to go fight, and maybe die, in the place of the civilian who has to make the same nation go 'round. Soldiers are supposed to protect the nation, not the other way around.

The federal governement isn't the one of the people. My representatives are about health, welfare and education. They stop representing me in 1982, when all of Quebec's federal deputation agreed to stab Quebec in the back in the night of the Long Knives.

One man going almost insane is still better than a hundred young men dying for naught. Pearson's position isn't an easy one, and it requires much more control than usual. That's why we, Canada, were once loved on the international scene.

No, they don't. First, it isn't a nation we are fighting, but a philosophy. Second - it wasn't Canada's business to attck them; they are a continent away, and do not threaten any Canadian citizen. We are now at war with them - and what happened in Ottawa, as far as we can say Islam is the cause, must be seen in that reality: In a war, you give some, and then you get some. Just be glad they don't have these out-of-price war toys we have or you'd be crying for the loss of all the parliement building instead, like we intend to do to them.

I don't see what the heck, but no, I am not a Péquiste since the mid-90s; Used to vote ADQ and CAQ since. However, I do am a Quebec nationalist, and I supported the PQ's charter that would have made religion take second place after civil laws, and for which they took a lot of flak during the last elections.

EDIT: What's this ridiculous, irrelevant debate about guns, people?

 

imagine for a moment if Canada allowed (without an act of God) concealed carry. It is a shame when only criminals have the guns.

Maybe Canadians might want to rethink their naive perspective now that Johnny Jihad has landed in their country

example of what lawful citizens do with guns

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ndfather-shoots-3-attempted-rape-robbery.html

 

I do believe that the guards at the cenotaph and those on parliament should be armed, but considering that Guns are the least used weapons for violent crime in canada, I think we are good on our laws.

 

as Johnny Jihad continues his ways, you may want to rethink that.

 

When they enter a public building, I guess it's easier for the security to see if they are packing heat rather than checking for their "lawfulness" records. Don't mistake me, I am against actual gun laws that punishes the honest, security-concerned gun owners but leaves all of the criminal armed, but it is irrelevent in this case.

 

Not really. We already saw what happens when a country clenches to tightly after an attack. I believe Canadians are a able to handle something like this without going crazy over it. Once you do that, then they win. I don't mind a few tweaks here and there (guards at parliament doors, with live ammo) but I really don't think we should alter how we work as a country because of a couple of crazy people.

I do think that CSIS needs to be asked why a guy under surveillance could have gotten so close to our MPs and our PM. Definitely a security lapse there.

 

In his 20s, Zehaf-Bibeau acquired a lengthy criminal record, with 12 convictions in Quebec between 2001 and 2011 for crimes including drug possession, impaired driving, weapons offences, assault causing bodily harm, theft, and possession of break-in tools.
The Canadian Press reports that, in Quebec criminal records, he appears under three names: Michael Bibeau, Michael Zehaf Bibeau and Michael Bibeau Zehaf.
Zehaf-Bibeau does not have a criminal record in Ontario. However, he was charged with mischief under $5,000 and failing to appear on a promise to appear/recognizance in 2003 in L'Orignal, Ont. Both charges were withdrawn in 2010.

A man who was staying at the same downtown Ottawa shelter as Zehaf-Bibeau said the suspect had told him that he wanted to get his passport, “get out of this country” and seek treatment for his drug addiction.
When Zehaf-Bibeau initially applied for a passport, it seemed that he had wanted to travel to Libya, Paulson said. But his mother told investigators Wednesday that her son wanted to go to Syria.

The same document says Zehaf-Bibeau didn’t seem to have a mental illness and described him as a “devoted Muslim for seven years.”

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa...beau-had-very-developed-criminality-1.2067255

I could say that he did choose what he would do next and the failure to do so drives him to act,
and he is very well capable to do that.

 

I find it a tad unsettling myself. But then again, Canada is a diverse nation with lots of opinions and cultures, as well as our fair share of cynics and idiots.

I did google it and I can't find any definition or description that says the sergeant at arms of the commons is armed. Just that he is responsible for maintaining order.

 

Ah, a most relevant point.

This Bibeau guy, did he had real ISIS counseling, training or support, did he had even a plan or did he just seized the occasion for what appears to be a whole lot of personal frustration? Remember corporal Lortie? When he invaded the Assemblée Nationale in the 80s, he claimed it was to "save Canada". Would be be an Islamist of convenience if he had acted today?

Was the Parliement attacked by organized Islamism... or by a pathetic loon?

 

That is correct, they do defend the nation.

Too bad you can't comprehend the obvious difference when an unarmed soldier gets murdered in his own country for nothing more than wearing his uniform.

Bullcrap. Levesque's pitiful "night of the long knives" lament was that of a sore loser, as we both know that is precisely what he was.
Fact is HIS demands wrt constitutional repatriation weren't going to happen and he totally ignored the fact that the majority of quebecois (his constituents) supported repatriation.

I guess when the Bloc became the loyal opposition you still unrepresented in parliament.

that is why our government is judicious in where and when they send our soldiers to fight.

Pearson's vision was bastardized by the UN, period. Rwanda was the last straw.

Yeah they do. We are fighting a barbarous group who share a perverse and distorted religious philosophy that DEMANDS they attempt to establish a new caliphate.
As to a threat to Canadians, it is a threat to the entire world, and last time I checked we were part of the first world which creates certain responsibilities, not the least of which is to combat transnational murderous threats.

It doesn't take "out of price (sic)" war toys to blow the crap outta anything. so spare me. I am aware that war creates losses on both sides.
and yes we certainly do intend to help take them out. Canadians have a proud history of not being afraid of a fight, and winning them when they do.

I have always found Quebec nationalism to be a poorly thought out ideal.

For it to be successful it actual needs the support of the Canadian government and people outside Quebec. Even in its "sovereign association" guise, for it to be successful, it REQUIRES, Ottawa's cooperation.

I find it rather odd that nationalist are perfectly willing to sacrifice their standard of living and first world status, for an debt ridden, impoverished nation for what exactly?

What do the Quebecois get from becoming an independent nation that they don't already have?

I get irritated when the sins of the Duplessis and the catholic establishment are blamed on the evil English and the rest of Canada by nationalist historical mythology. I look at quebec and see a thriving and vibrant francophone culture. I see francophones governing. I see French the dominant language. I see them living in a nation that allows them to spout their treasonous desires with impunity.

Some Americans are always desperate to justify their ridiculously lax gun laws. so some will always pop up saying idiotic things like "it wouldn't happen if everyone had a gun", despite the REGULAR terrorist attacks upon them (both domestic and foreign). Logic isn't necessarily a strong point.

 

We tend not to be a paranoid people.

Fact is not only criminals have guns. But only criminals use guns for criminal acts. They always have and always will REGARDLESS of who else might be packing.

 

Yeah - I'm pretty sure that our coalition will take great care to only kill ISIS militaries when they are on their shifts, and when we're sure that they're fully armed and ready first.

That guy was shot while on duty, period. I don't know what's so surrealist about it since we're at war.

Harper is no Pearson. Of course our role wasn't easy - we didn't do it because it was easy, or because we were cowards. It was a difficult role we used to do well. Now our US(and Israel)-sucking foreign policies has made us the laughing stock of the rest of the planet.

Bah that's bull(*)(*)(*)(*). They are like 20,000 miserably co-ordinated and equipped barbarians out there. They are indeed a nuisance but a world threat? Come on. ISIS wasn't on the screen when Lortie opened fire in the Assemblée Nationala and yet there he was.

They also used to have the reputation to be a pacifist, rational and independant nation, not entering wars for the heck of it.

Well, the power to take the decision not to go to war in the Middle-East, for starters, since we're the only ones still holding "Canadian" values. Quebec is the original Canada. We build your country (if you are living in Canada), we can certainly build ours. Without us the RoC is but North Minnesota.

Yeah. Guess what irritates me? Opinions like that, that's what. De-centralisation would be good for every part of Canada (except Ontario). If you hate us so, why don't you let us go? Do the foch what you want with your rest of a country after that. I don't care.